HC Deb 13 July 1948 vol 453 cc1154-6

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the Third Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. Foster

I would like to ask why the repeal of parts of the Act of Settlement and of "An Act for the more effectuall Suppression of Piracy" come into this Schedule. I notice that the extent of the repeal of the Piracy Act is as follows: In section seven, the words 'naturall borne' and 'or denizens of this Kingdome'. I hope we are not increasing the class of piracies in order to improve our relations with the Dominions. Then the Act of Settlement is repealed to the following extent: In section three, the words from 'That after the said limitation shall take effect' to 'in trust for him' so far as they relate to British subjects and citizens of Eire. Perhaps the Attorney-General would explain what the effect of that is, because the Act of Settlement is a fundamental law of our Constitution, and any repeal of its provisions would interest the Committee even at this late hour.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Why, in Part II of the Schedule has it been found necessary to repeal 4 & 5 Ann c. 16— An Act for the Naturalization of the Most Excellent Princess Sophia Electress and Dutchess Dowager of Hanover and the Issue of her Body in view of the fact that her late Royal Highness has been dead for two and a half centuries and the fact that her issue have occupied the English Throne for most of the period? It does seem a little difficult to understand why in this Bill it should be necessary to repeal that Act.

Mr. Younger

I should like to refer to the question of the Act of Settlement. Under the old law, including the Act of Settlement, a distinction is made between natural-born British citizens and other British subjects. When the newer legislation was passed relating to aliens, that distinction was dropped, but it has been a matter of some doubt whether the old provisions were actually repealed and whether they were completely superseded. That was so much so that in the last war, there was an individual case where there was doubt whether someone who was a British subject, not natural-born but by the method of naturalisation, was entitled to sit in the Privy Council. It is now, we think, important that that doubt should be cleared up and, therefore, in so far as it affects that point, and only in that respect, this repeal is necessary.

Mr. Ede

May I say, with regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), that the point was raised in 1937, I think by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the junior Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton), who drew attention to the fact that this Act had been passed which said that all descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover should be British subjects. The progeny of this most excellent lady, who secured the Protestant succession for this country, have been very numerous, and have been spread over many European countries. It has been felt desirable, in view of the fact that certain action has had to be taken in the past dealing with this situation, and that we have been engaged in wars with countries in which some of these descendants have held high office, that this Act should be removed.

Forward to